When you lend somebody money, they usually have to pay you for the privilege.
That has been a bedrock assumption across centuries of financial history. But it is an assumption that is increasingly being tossed aside by some of the world's central banks and bond markets.
A decade ago, negative interest rates were a theoretical curiosity that economists would discuss almost as a parlor game. Two years ago, it began showing up as an unconventional step that a few small countries considered. Now, it is the stated policy of some of the most powerful global central banks, including the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan.
On Thursday, Sweden's central bank lowered its bank lending rate to a negative 0.5 percent from a negative 0.35 percent, and said it could cut further still; European bank stocks were hammered partly because investors feared what negative rates could do to bank profits. The Federal Reserve chairwoman, Janet Yellen, acknowledged in congressional testimony Wednesday and Thursday that the American central bank was taking a look at the strategy, though she emphasized no such move was envisioned.
But as negative rates — in which depositors pay to hold money in bank accounts — become a more common fixture, there are many unknowns about what these policies mean for finance, for the economy and even for the definition of money.
These are some of the key questions, and, where we have them, the answers.
So how do negative interest rates work?
It depends. In the cases of interest rate targets set by central banks like the E.C.B. and Swedish Riksbank, they set a negative target rate for banks, and banks in turn pass it along to their customers. The E.C.B., for example, currently has a negative 0.3 percent rate, meaning that when banks deposit money at the central bank overnight, they pay for the privilege.
Banks have different ways of passing the negative rates on to depositors, often framed as fees for keeping money in an account, which is basically negative interest rates by another name.
Bond markets reflect these negative rates, too, including for longer-term government debt. For example, if you bought a two-year Swiss government bond on Thursday, you would have needed to pay a price that resulted in a yield of negative 1.12 percent. Even 10-year Swiss bonds have a negative rate, a sign markets expect below-zero rates to persist in Switzerland for many years to come.
Generally companies that borrow money are viewed as riskier than governments, so they have to pay higher interest rates. Therefore negative-rate corporate debt is still rare. But it has happened, including with corporate bonds issued by the Swiss food giant Nestle.
But don't people just withdraw cash rather than pay to deposit it at their bank or buy a government bond that will give them back less than they paid?
You'd think, right? This was exactly why economists had long thought that negative interest rates were impossible. It helps explain why central banks first turned to other tools, including quantitative easing, when they saw a need to ease monetary policy despite interest rates that were already near zero.
But it looks as if the convenience of keeping money in a bank account is worth a small negative interest rate or fees for most consumers and businesses, at least at the only slightly negative rates currently in place. Storing and providing security for cash may be more expensive than a small bank charge.
When initial experiments in Switzerland and Sweden didn't result in mass withdrawals from the banking system, larger central banks in need of easier money moved gingerly in the same direction. They'll stop when either their economies start to grow or they see more concrete evidence that negative rates are doing more harm than good.
How is this supposed to help the economy?
Pretty much the same way it always is supposed to help the economy when a central bank cuts rates. Lower rates encourage business investment and consumer spending; increase the value of the stock market and other risky assets; lower the value of a country's currency, making exporters more competitive; and create expectations of higher future inflation, which can induce people to spend now.
We have decades of experience with central banks trying to manage the economy by, for example, cutting bank rates to 2 percent from 3 percent when there is an economic downturn. The shift to negative rate policies is, hypothetically at least, the same, but with a starting point of rates already around zero.
So does it work?
It's hard to say with any certainty yet. At a minimum, it seems to have an effect of lowering the value of a currency, which makes export industries very happy. It's less clear whether it can help create sustained economic growth, particularly when the hard-to-calculate downsides are factored in.
What are those downsides?
The global financial system is built on an assumption of above-zero interest rates. Going below zero could cause damage to the very architecture by which money and credit zoom through the economy, and in turn inhibit growth.
Banks could cease to be viable businesses, eliminating a key way that money is channeled from savers to productive investments. Money market mutual funds, widely used in the United States, could well cease to exist. Insurance companies and pension funds could face their own major strains.
In a speech last year, Hervé Hannoun, then the deputy general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, even argued that this could "over time encourage the use of alternative virtual currencies, undermining the foundations of the financial system as we know it today."
Is the Federal Reserve going to do this in the United States?
Posted by: sarah_oz@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
Belum ada komentar untuk "[TSP_Strategy] Negative Interest Rates : Wny Would You Pay to Save?"
Post a Comment